Upload
fairtrade-asia-pacific
View
31
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP)3307, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Hong Kong
273, Thomson Road, #04-01, Novena Gardens, Singapore- 307644
Evaluating 2015: The Case for ImpactAyan A Banerjee | CEO Harveen Kour | MEL Manager
AGENDACross cutting across slides | Impact Evaluation; Strategic Intent
Impact Assessment
Monitoring
Evaluation
NAPP Profile
Learning
Social Returns on Investment
Premium Utilization
Premium Receipts
Standards
Pricing
Market Outreach
Products and Markets
RepresentationFarmer empowerment
Worker empowerment
Efficiency
Scope of Activities
Scope
Geographical ScopeBudget Constraints
Growth
Programmes
Targetted Projects
• The financial figures and participation data is based on NAPP Finance Information
• All MEL based producer data is for external communication
• All ECERT based producer data is for internal insights
• While FLO IDs are self explanatory, for the purpose of this presentation a PO is a producer group which may have multiple FLO IDs
• All Premium & Farmers Workers data is based on MEL data i.e. as per audits (cut-off period is 30, April 2015)
• For some specific producer organizations, since the audit did not happen this year, last year figures have been taken for no. of farmers & workers, premium, production, sales etc.
3
PRELUDE AND CAVEATSKey Points to Note
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADVISORYExecutive Summary
Given resource constraints, NAPP needs to: • Create concentric circles of services priorities; or,
• Leverage additional resources, revise revenue model and contribution of members
• Maximising development change from a Social Returns on Investment (SROI), framework developed
Align Fairtrade with NAPP (Tier 2 products; premium, sales and markets, and basic financing for NAPP towards producer support)
In NAPP subsidizing/ sponsoring trade-fairs participation, we found no concrete evidence that it is creating impact [demonstrated access to markets leading to premiums]
• NAPP needs to develop, adapt and implement SROI in decision on operating plans
STANDARD OPERATING PRINCIPLES & PROCEDURES: Client-centric | Lean | MEL Integrated
FOCUS IMPACT ON THE CUSTOMERS
Customer Development
Lean OperationsBootstrapping
THROUGH CONSTANT EVOLVING, LEARNING PROCESSES
“Lean Operations” represents a synthesis of Customer Development, and Lean practices.
Articulate Problem, Formulate Tenable
Hypothesis
Demo: Pilot / Proof-of-concept / Build Minimal
Viable Product
Validate Solution: Evaluate Qualitatively, Verify Quantitatively
Learn
LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLANEmbedding in the DNA of the organization
(The marginal farmer, the worker, the consumer!)
“Customer Development” will be used to describe the parallel process of building a continuous feedback loop with customers throughout the product/service development cycle.
“Bootstrapping” in our common context will be understood as a collection of techniques used to minimize the amount of external resources required – financial and non-financial. This would be a step towards sustainability.
LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLANExecutive Summary
• What are the proposed changes from 2015?
• What does the 2015 analysis mean for 2016 and beyond?
1. Efficiency
2. Value for Money
3. Impact
6
NAPP PROFILEPOs by type
7Source: MEL Data 2014
NAPP PROFILEPOs by type
8
2012 2013 2014 20150
50
100
150
200
250
45 49 54 54
105117
128 138
2219
2118
Change in Producer Organizations by Type- CAGR with 2012 as Base Year
HL SPO CP
CP CAGR: -1.5%
TOTAL CAGR: 3%
HL CAGR: 3%
SPO CAGR: 3%
TOTAL 172
TOTAL 185
TOTAL 203
TOTAL 210
Take-away:• CAGR with 2012 as base year
comparison between CAGR 2015 & CAGR 2014 shows that:
o Overall CAGR reduced to 3% in 2015 from 6% in 2014.
o CP CAGR reduced to -1.5% in 2015 from -1% in 2014
o HL CAGR reduced to 3% in 2015 compared to 5% in 2014
- Does this reflect the stagnancy in the tea sector?o SPO CAGR reduced to 3% in 2015
compared to 5% in 2014
Source: ECERT
NAPP PROFILE POs by type
9
Take-away:• If we include all multi-estates for HL, then the number of SPOs and number of these
estates almost equalizes• How does this link to global 2016-2020 strategy?• Where are the workers in the strategy?• Do we have 210 or 304 producers? How would we look at this from producer support
point of view and from market support point of view?
26%
66%
9%
Percentage Share of Producer Organizations
HL SPO CP
49%
45%
6%
Percentage Share of Producer Organizations 2015 according to multi-estates
HL (including multi-estates) SPO CP
HL SPO CP Total0
50100150200250300350
54
138
18
210
148 138
18
304
No. of Orgs as per FLO IDs in comparison to No. of Orgs including multi-estates
No. of FLO IDsNo. of Orgs including multi-estates
Source: ECERTSource: ECERT
Source: ECERT
Since the multi-estates are only in India & Sri Lanka, when we take them into account:• India’s HL sector increases from 33
organizations to 103 estates• Sri Lanka’s HL sector increases from
13 organizations to 37 estates
NAPP PROFILE The NAPP Map
10
India
Sri Lan
ka
Thaila
nd
Indon
esia
Vietna
mChin
a
Pakist
an Fiji
Papua
New
Guin
ea
Philipp
ines
Tajikis
tan
Uzbek
istan
Kyrgyz
stan
East T
imor Ira
nLa
oNep
al
Samoa
Tonga
Afghan
istan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9085
23 21 19 1714
83 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
2012 2013 2014 2015
NAPP PROFILEPOs by Countries
11
Source: ECERT
Take-away:
• Countries that have grown in the last 3 years are:- India- Sri Lanka- Thailand
• Should our programmes be focussed in countries where the growth is or where the producer organizations are not growing?
• Should this data be looked at in comparison to FT sales and FT premium?
• What does this data mean for the countries that are not growing or have low absolute numbers of producer organizations?
• What are the kind of push mechanisms required for other countries? Resources and/or markets?
FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICCentral Asia & Western Asia
Countries No. of FLO IDs
Products/Potential Products
Afghanistan 0 Nuts, Dry fruitsIran 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Saffron, Dry-fruits, NutsKazakhstan 0 Cotton, Dry fruitsKyrgyzstan 2 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)Tajikistan 3 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts Turkmenistan 0 Seed Cotton, Grapes, RaisinsUzbekistan 3 Fresh fruits, Dry fruits, Seed Cotton, Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Vegetables incl. Pulses
& PotatoesArmenia 0 Dry fruits, Nuts, WinesAzerbaijan 0 Fresh fruits, Herbs, PotatoesGeorgia 0 Dry fruits, Vegetables, Wines
12
FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICSouth Asia
13
Take-away:• In 2016, we will leverage project on textiles perk up presence in Bangladesh• In 2016, we will evaluate producers and entry into Bhutan• In 2016, we will leverage partnerships to look into Nepal and Myanmar
Countries No. of FLO IDs
Products/Potential Products
Bangladesh 0 Textile, Rice, Seed Cotton, SugarBhutan 0 Processed fruitsIndia 85 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Seed Cotton, Tea, Cocoa, Coffee, Fresh fruit, Oilseeds &
Oleaginous fruit, Dried Fruit, Rice, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)Maldives 0 MarineMyanmar 0 Rice, SugarcaneNepal 1 TeaPakistan 8 Sports-balls, Seed Cotton, RiceSri Lanka 23 Tea, Banana, Cocoa, Fresh fruit, Nuts, Flowers & Plants, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit,
Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Rice
FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICSouth East Asia
14
Take-away:• Indonesia is an important country for coffee in terms of premium receipts as well.
However, what is the scope for other products there?• Can rice and textiles both perk up Cambodia?
Countries No. of FLO IDs
Products/Potential Products
Cambodia 0 Rice, TextilesChina 14 Nuts, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes), Tea, Honey,
Coffee, Herbs, herbal teas & spicesIndonesia 19 CoffeeNorth Korea 0Laos 1 CoffeeMalaysia 0 Coconut, Rubber, PalmMongolia 0 Gold, Cashmere/textilePhilippines 3 Cane sugar, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit
FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICPacific
15
Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Walis & Fatuna Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Vanuatu – not covered by Fairtrade and NAPP
Countries No. of FLO IDs
Products/Potential Products
Fiji 3 Cane sugarPapua New Guinea
3 Coffee
Samoa 1 Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruitTonga 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit
2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 20140
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1,100 1,600 1,000 0 0 0 1,100 1,600 1,000
59,500 62,400 62,500
100 0 0
59,600 62,400 62,500
76,700 74,400 80,600
99,400 103,400 104,000
176,100 177,800 184,60019,200 19,100 19,700
0 0 0
19,200 19,100 19,700
Central and Western Asia South-East & East Asia South Asia Pacific
NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERSFarmers and Workers
16
Farmers in Small Producer Organizations Workers in Hired Labour Plantations Total Farmers& Workers
Source: MEL Data 2014 Note: No. of farmers and workers in SPOs includes CP
Farmers61%
Workers39%
NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERS3-year Trend Analysis reveals a flat curve
17Source: MEL Data 2014
2012 2013 20140
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
SPO Farmers
2012 2013 20140
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
HL Workers
2012 2013 20140
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1100 1600 1000
59600 62400 62500
176100 177800 184600
19200 19100 19700
256000 260900 267800
Total Farmers & Workers
Central and Western Asia South-East & East AsiaSouth Asia Pacific ASIA PACIFIC TOTALTake-away:
• 2012 as base year, growth (CAGR) :• SPO Farmers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia
followed by Pacific)• HL Workers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia)• Average: 2% (most of the growth is concentrated in South Asia)• Which regions should be focussed: Growing vs not growing?• While number of HL estates when take into account multi-
estates are almost equivalent to SPOs, farmers form 61% of total farmers & workers; whereas workers form only 39% of total farmers & workers
NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERSIn relation to POs across regions
18
Source: MEL Data 2014Source: ECERT
Kyrgyzstan1%
Fiji1%
Papua New Guinea1%
Philippines1%
Tajikistan1%
Uzbekistan1%Pakistan
4%China
7%
Vietnam8%
Indonesia9%
Thailand10%Sri Lanka
11%
India40%
Producer Organizations by CountryChina
1%Lao1%
Papua New Guinea1%
Thailand2%
Pakistan5%
Fiji6%
Timor Leste8%
Sri Lanka9%
Indonesia11%
India55%
Farmers & Workers by Country
GENDER BALANCEAsia Pacific I
19
72%
28%
Farmers & Workers by Gender
Men Women
90%
10%
Farmers in Fairtrade by Gender
Men Women
45%
55%
Workers in Fairtrade by Gender
Men Women
Overall 28% of farmers & workers are women• 55% of the workers are women (HL setups) • 10% of the farmers are women (SPO, CP setups)
• But what women voice & representation?• How can we strengthen that? What should be our
impact parameters?
Take-away:• Are only 10% of women engaged in farming?• What are the further areas to explore in regards to women
participation in farming and women as workers?• The fact that there is a high percentage of women workers in
plantations, does that mean there is no need for gender programme there?
Source: MEL Data 2014
20
GENDER BALANCEGlobal comparison in Fairtrade
Take-away:• While Fairtrade Asia Pacific
has the highest percentage of women workers in the world, it also has the lowest percentage of women farmers
• What lessons can be learnt from Africa & Latin America?
• What can be the impact of “programmes” and what should be the proposed outcomes on voice and representation of farmers / workers, given that the C-Suite in Corporate America, Fortune 100 Companies has <20% women*!
*Source: McKinsey Research
Source: MEL Data 2014
Women participation
21
2015 ANALYSIS
Number of POs 2015 CP SPO HL
No. of Individual Farmers & Workers
No. of Women
% of Women
No. of Farmers
No. of Women Farmers
% of Women Farmers
No. of Workers
No. of Women Workers
% of Women Workers
Afghanistan 0 China 14 14 3471 338 10%Fiji 3 3 15676 2421 15%India 85 17 35 33 147588 48678 33% 69527 4674 7% 78061 44004 56%Indonesia 19 19 28470 3434 12%Iran 1 1 56 0 0%Kyrgyzstan 2 2 598 218 36%Lao 1 1 1856 NA NANepal 1 1 171 89 52%Pakistan 8 1 7 12223 3470 28% 6834 1025 15% 5389 2445 45%Papua New Guinea 3
1 3944 287 7%
Philippines 3 3 737 338 46%Samoa 1 1 39 7 18%Sri Lanka 23 10 13 24440 11962 49% 4085 979 24% 20355 10983 54%Tajikistan 3 3 Thailand 21 21 5277 1241 24%Timor Leste 1 1 21558 1725 8%Tonga 1 1 Uzbekistan 3 3 401 170 42%Vietnam 17 17 1088 127 12%Total 210 18 138 54 267593 74505 28%• Overall only 28% of farmers & workers in Asia Pacific are women• While 55% of the workers are women, only 10% of the farmers are women
China Fiji
India
Indon
esia Ira
n
Kyrgyz
stan
Lao
Nepal
Pakist
an
Papua
New
Guin
ea
Philipp
ines
Samoa
Sri Lan
ka
Tajikis
tan
Thaila
nd
Timor
Leste
Tonga
Uzbek
istan
Vietna
mTota
l0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3,471 15,676
147,588
28,47056 598 1,856 171 12,223 3,944 737 39
24,440 5,277 21,558 401 1,088
267,593
10%
15%
33%
12%
0%
36%
52%
28%
7%
46%
18%
49%
24%
8%
42%
12%
28%
Number of Individual Farmers & Workers Percentage of Women
GENDER BALANCEAsia Pacific II
22
Note: Farmers & Workers data for Tonga & Tajikistan is unavailable. Women farmers & workers data for Laos is unavailable.
Source: MEL Data 2014
Take-away:For programme impact and delivery, percentage of women participation cannot be looked at in isolation. Consider the number of producer organizations it represents. Look at the disaggregated figures for farmers & workers
Nepal: 52% women HL workers but only 1 PO. Sri Lanka: 49% women, only 24% farmers and 54% workers. Philippines: 46% women farmers. Uzbekistan: 42% women farmers (3 producer organizations) Kyrgyzstan: 35% women farmers (2 producer organizations). India: 33% women, only 7% are farmers, 56% are workers. Pakistan: 28% women; only 15% farmers, 45% are workers
GENDER BALANCE Comparative Analysis
23
Take-away:• Where should our gender programmes be
focussed? Should we focus work on increasing women membership in SPOs?
• How should we differentiate & make relevant the gender programmes in HL setups and that in SPOs?
• Which regions / countries should we prioritize? Gender beyond numbers – understanding gravity of local situation, culture and likelihood of impact given marginal investments. Cause of concern with Indonesia, Vietnam, Timor Leste as they represent high percentage of farmers and workers, POs and premium receipts.
Potential Intervention for Impact for creating Gender Balance
Country Number of Women Total Percentage Ranking*
Iran 0 56 0% 16
Papua New Guinea 287 3944 7% 15
India (farmers) 4674 69527 7% 14
Timor Leste 1725 21588 8% 13
China 338 3471 10% 12
Vietnam 127 1088 12% 11
Indonesia 3434 28470 12% 11
Pakistan (farmers) 2445 5389 15% 10
Fiji 2421 15675 15% 10
* 16 countries; data not available for 4
24
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM Asia Pacific Overview
Take-away:• The reported Fairtrade Premium revenues to producers in Asia Pacific grew marginally by only 2.7% from 2013 levels i.e. from
10.5 million to 10.8 million Euros . The growth was marginal within all producer set ups in Asia Pacific. In contrast, the average global premium receipts have grown by 13% from 2013 levels i.e. from 95 million Euros (approx.). Obviously, not equally accruing to 1.5 million farmers and workers to 108 million Euros (approx.) accruing to 1.6 million farmers and workers.
Source: MEL Data 2014
• FT premium per producer organization in Asia Pacific: 57,830 Euros p.a. • FT Premium per farmer/worker is 40.41 Euros p.a. FT premium per worker is 15 Euros and FT premium per
farmer is 56 Euros!! With marginal increase in FT premium for Asia Pacific, is there merit in expansion of producer organizations?
25
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM Comparision with NAPP
Take-away:• Africa and the Middle East represents the highest % of the FT farmers and workers but receives only 22% of the FT premium• Latin America & the Caribbean represents only 20% of the farmers and workers and receives the highest % of the FT premium• What are the reasons for higher sales from Latin America? What are the influencing factors?• Is it because of quality? Is it because of demand of specific FT products? Is it how FT is branded in the markets?• What can our producers learn from their experience? What are the best practices?• Is there scope for any South-South engagements that can prove beneficial for our producers in the long run?
LATIN AMERICA & THE CARRIBBEANAFRICA & THE MIDDLE EAST
Source: MEL Data 2014
26
GLOBAL COMPARISONFairtrade premium
• Asia Pacific farmers have the highest FT Premium per farmer
as compared to its counterparts in Africa and Latin America• However, Asia Pacific workers have the lowest FT Premium per
worker compared to its counterparts. The Pacific, Indonesian, Chinese and Vietnam have higher FT premium per farmer/worker than rest of Asia Pacific
FT PREMIUM PER YEAR
FT Premium Per Farmer/Worker
FT Premium Per Farmer
FT Premium Per Worker
Asia Pacific 40.41 56 15
Africa and the Middle East
22 17 80
Latin America & The Caribbean
219 17 555
Source: MEL Data 2014
The global average does not capture the extreme differences in impact and FT Premium per farmer and FT Premium per workers?
How will the 2016-2020 Strategy create greater Fairtrade Impact and reduce disparity?
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONBy product for Asia pacific
Take-away:• Coffee still forms the highest share of the Fairtrade
premium revenues {marginally reduced from 45% in 2012-2013 to 41% in 2013-2014}
• Share of cane sugar & tea remained stable at 23% and 21% respectively. How will this change in 2017 esp. for Fijian producers?
• Fairtrade cotton marginal increase in premium revenues from 5% to 8%. What is the impact that FSP will make?
• The choice of three products – Coffee, Cocoa and Banalan and not a strategy for Tier 2 (which is Tier 1 for Asia) - how does one create alignment?
• How do these statistics relate to Fairtrade 2016-2020 strategy?
• What does this mean for budgets? Investments? • What does this mean for Impact Evaluations?• Which are the products where we can foresee growth and
demand?
27
Source: MEL Data 2014
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONBy product
28
Source: MEL Data 2014
Take-away:• Coffee, Banana, Cocoa receive the highest premium share
globally. • How does this relate to FT 2016-2020 strategy?• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to pushing
these Tier 1 products?• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to role of
markets for tier II products which are core for NAPP like tea, sugar, cotton?
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION Premium usage BY SPOs
29Source: MEL Data 2014
Take-away:• More than 50% of the investments in Producer
Organizations is in HR & admin Is this a cause of concern? How can FT influence this in any way?
• Education and Health form bulk of Premium use, followed by being used for community infrastructure.
• Agricultural tools and inputs, implementation of farm best practices form more than 50% of the services rendered to farmer members from FT premium.
• Are there any areas that need a push?
Investment in producer orga-
nizations48%
Other2%
Services to communities
21%
Services to farmer members
29%
Facilities & infrastructure
44%HR & admin
53%
Training & capacity of
board committees
3%
Investment in Producer Organizations
Community infrastruc-
ture10%
Education33%
Envi-ronment
4%Gender equality
0%
Health25%
Other24%
Socio-Economic
5%
Service to Communities
Credit & finance
4%
Education 1% Farmer
training in agri &
business practices
8%Health3%Implemen-
tation of farm best practices
21%Other15%
Payments to mem-
bers17%
Agricul-tural tools & inputs
30%
Support for hired
workers on farms
1%
Service to Farmer Members
30Source: MEL Data 2014
Other2%
Services for workers & their
families38%
Services to communities
57%
Training & em-powerment of
workers3%
Education12% Finance &
credit1%
Health10%
Investment in worker housing
20%
Other54%
Payments 3%
Services for Workers & their Families
Commu-nity in-
frastruc-ture48%
Education10%
Envi-ronment
0%
Gender equality
0%
Health 31%
Socio-economic services
11%
Services to Communities
Joint Body & com-mittee
running costs89%
Sup-port for work-ers or-ganiza-
tions9%
Train-ings for work-ers2%
Training & Empowerment of Workers
Take-away:• Majority of the premium has been used for
services to communities followed by services for workers & their families
• Community infrastructure receives highest percentage investment in terms of services to communities
• In terms of services for workers & their families it is not clear what ‘Other’ stands for as more than 50% of the premium used for that, followed by investments in worker housing and education
• Training and empowerment of workers seems synonymous with training of Joint Body Committee running costs
• What are the issues in this mode of premium use?
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION Premium usage By HL setups
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONProducts premium distribution among countries
31
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
FLO ID Producer organization name Country
3499 Tunas Indah Coffee Farmers Cooperative Indonesia
5416 Koperasi Baitul Qiradh Baburrayyan (KBQB) Indonesia
6589 Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia
930 Cooperativa Café Timor - CCT Timor-Leste
2897Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative - HOAC Papua New Guinea
19646Aso. des Groupements de Prod de Café du Plateau des Bolovens Laos
27501KOPERASI PEDAGANG KOPI (KOPEPI) KETIARA Indonesia
18296 KSU Arinagata Indonesia18722 KSU Adil Wiladah Mabrur Indonesia
21093 Cudliemnong Fair Agriculture Cooperative Vietnam18009 Koperasi Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia
21094 Eakiet Fair Agriculture Service Cooperative Vietnam
21473To Hop Tac San Xuat Ca Phe Sach Vi Suc Khoe Cong Dong Vietnam
28651 Thuan An Fairtrade Agricultural Co-operative Vietnam
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
2755581; 69%
568962; 14%
337342; 8%
211149; 5%
78864; 2% 39531; 1%
Coffee Premium Distribution
Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New GuineaLao India Thailand
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONProducts premium distribution among countries
32
FLO ID Producer organization name Country25351Labasa Cane Producers Association Fiji28108Lautoka Cane Producers Association Fiji
28109Rarawai & Penang Cane Producers Association Fiji
23805Kadrolli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. India
23894Devarshigihalli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit India
29041Dama Farm Workers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association Philippines
1482Negros Organic and Fairtrade Association Philippines29161Nakalang Padilla Workers Association Philippines
29155ASOSASYON SANG MAMUMUGON SANG NOLAN ( AMANO) Philippines
27787Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit, Neginahal India
27788Arvatagi Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit India
27789Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Niyamit India26921Pranburi Fairtrade Sugar Cane Group Thailand
27790Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit, New Kadrolli India
27791Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit, Itagi India
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
2192551; 89%
190338; 8%
65890; 3% 2560; 0%
Cane Sugar Premium Distribution
Fiji India Philippines Thailand
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONProducts premium distribution among countries
33
FLO ID Producer organization name Country
1562 The Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. India
18013 McLeod Russel India Limited India558 Small Organic Farmers' Association SOFA Sri Lanka560 Jiangxi Wuyuan Dazhangshan Organic Tea Farmer Association China
4440 Xuan En Yisheng Tea Cooperative China
508 The United Nilgiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India
22701 Coonoor Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India
1567 Chamong Tee Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Chamong Tea Group) India
25759 Marginalized Organic Producers' Associations Sri Lanka
18519 Thiashola Plantations Private Limited (Thiashola Estate) IndiaDATA UNAVAILABLE 29907
West Jalinga Tea Estate (K. Manibhai & Co.) India
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
1402919; 62%425143; 19%
391847; 17%
30658; 1%
Tea Premium Distribution
India China Sri Lanka Vietnam Indonesia Nepal
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONProducts premium distribution among countries
34
FLO ID Producer organization name Country25683 Noble Ecotech India
18612Suminter Organic Farmers Association (earlier:Gujarat Sustainable & Organic Farmers Association) India
19221Pratima Agro & Paper PVT.LTD. Pratima Organic Grower Group. India
26204 OM ORGANIC COTTON PVT. LTD. India
18470Jaydurga Ginning mills pvt ltd and Jai Maa Dwarsini Krushak Shang, Kantabanji India
4531 Pratibha-Vasudha Jaivik Krishi Kalyan Samiti India
20294Bio Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service Cooperative
Kyrgyzstan
4018Chetna Organic Agriculture Producer Company Limited (COAPCL) India
4073 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Rapar India
18491 Sunstar Overseas and Group of Small Cotton Farmers India
4784 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Orissa India(DATA UNAVAILABLE)18862 Agrocel Pure & Fair Cotton Growers Assn. - Sankeshwar India
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
811389; 96%
36446; 4%
Seed Cotton Premium Distribution
India Kyrgyztan
PRODUCER PARTICIPATION Trade-fairs and market related efforts: Activities
• NAPP supported producer participation in 7 events out of 8 mentioned above • At BioFach India & BioFach Germany, NAPP had a producer stall • 56 out of 210 FLO IDs i.e. 27% were supported during the year• They represented only 43 unique producer organizations • Wherein 56 (51 unique) representatives participated only 9 of whom were
women i.e. 16% • 6 out of 10 products i.e. 60% & 8 out of 20 countries represented i.e. 40%
35
PRODUCT ACTIVITYPRODUCER FEEDBACK
NO OF FLO IDs
NO OF MEMBERS
NO. OF WOMEN HL CP SPO COUNTRY
FRUIT Fruit Logistica Neutral 6 6 0 6 India, Sri LankaBioFach America Neutral 1 1 1 1 Vietnam
SPICES BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India
COTTON Textile Exchange Positive 7 7 0 5 2 India, KyrgyzstanBioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India
COFFEEBioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 Laos, Vietnam
SCAA Positive 13 13 4 13India, Indonesia, Vietnam
RICE BioFach America Neutral 3 3 0 3 IndiaBioFach Germany Positive 6 6 1 5 1 India Thailand
TEA Team Up Positive 8 8 1 7 1India, Sri Lanka, China
BioFach Shanghai Positive 2 2 1 2 ChinaBioFach America Neutral 4 4 1 4 China, Vietnam
TEA, RICE, COFFEE, SPICES, COTTON, FRUITS* BioFach India Negative
20 producer organizations with almost 60 participants funded themselves and set up stalls at this forum. India
TOTAL 56 56 9 7 15 34
Note: Includes only NAPP anchored events i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded events
Take-away:• Why were product focussed events conducted?• Why have we decided not to fund this anymore?• Are there some useful events where we can support producers in
any way?• Is their merit in setting up NAPP stalls in any of these or other
external forums?• What is the value add?• Can we support through producers through ready materials?
PRODUCER PARTICIPATION Trade-fairs and market related efforts: RoI Framework
36
Curbside debrief (2015)
Date Event Name Location ProductsNAPP Participation 2015 Producer feedback
Plan 2016
Date2016 Location
Location Advantage
Product-Regions priority
Target market
Expected Footfalls
NAPP Producer Countries
Budget (K EUR)
# of producer participants
Equitable Index
Follow-up Action/ Improvement
NAPP mgmt / Executives Participation
Post- Event review(by CMO)Business value generated in Euro # of Business enquiries MC(High/Medium/Low) ROI%Producer feedback VFM Future participation Y/N
PRODUCER PARTICIPATIONIn product oriented trainings
PRODUCT ACTIVITY NO OF FLO IDs
NO OF MEMBERS
NO. OF WOMEN HL CP SPO COUNTRY
TEA
Tea Garden Exchange 9 10 3 9 1 India, Sri LankaGPM Meeting North India 5 5 0 5 IndiaGPM Meeting South India 7 7 0 7 India
Tea Network Meeting 16 17 6 14 3Sri Lanka, India, China
FT Standards 6 20 0 6 India
RICE Productivity-Rice Workshop, Pantnagar 7 12 0 7 India
COTTONTextile Standards Workshop 9 18 0 8 1 IndiaCotton Network Meeting-Governance 8 9 0 7 1 India
SUGAR
Standards Consultation 8 22 1 8 IndiaProducer Exchange Visit 6 6 0 6 India, FijiProductivity-Training, Dharwad 7 140 12 7 IndiaSugar Consultation FI 8 40 1 8 IndiaTOTAL 96 306 23 41 22 35
37
• 12 workshops/meetings• 96 out of 210 POs i.e. 46%• Represented 65 unique producer organizations i.e. 31%• Wherein 306 representatives participated. • Only 23 of which were women i.e. 8%• 4 / 10 products i.e. 40% Note: Includes only NAPP anchored trainings i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded programmes
Take-away:• With budgetary limitations, which types of trainings
are more relevant?• Should productivity enhancement and quality
focussed trainings as a series be the approach forward?
PREMIUM RECEIPTSCountry Rankings
Ranking No. Of Producer Organizations No. of Farmers & Workers FT Premium Receipts1 India India India
2 Sri Lanka Indonesia Indonesia
3 Thailand Sri Lanka Fiji
4 Indonesia Timor Leste Vietnam
5 Vietnam Fiji China
6 China Pakistan Sri Lanka
Take-away:• Why is Premium ranking important?• What does this mean for:
• NAPP Governance?• Representative participation in events?• Service Delivery and Programmes?• Impact Assessment • Budgetary allocation
• Ranking can also be done on• Gender balance• Climate Change adaptation (needs)• Premium Utilization – impact and org. development
7
MARKET OUTREACH THROUGH PRODUCT NETWORKS Resources Utilization
39
32%
29%
19%
7%
7%4% 3%
Product Networks
Rice Tea Coffee All Products Cotton Fruit Sugar
Take-away:
Programme expenditure has been distributed in the following manner: o Rice – 32% (14% spent on a productivity workshop, rest for
marketing events)o Tea – 29% (all on marketing events)o Coffee – 18% (all on marketing events)o Cotton – 7% (69% of which spent on cotton network meeting
(representation), rest on attending marketing events)o Fruit – 4% (all on marketing events)o Sugar – 3% (all of which was spent in workshops focused on
productivity, producer exchange and consultation)
Given constraints, how does not choose pririties between KPIs?
What type of programmes can be concerned as the most effective use of limited resources?
REPRESENTATION THROUGH NATIONAL NETWORKS Resources Utilization
40
Take-away:
• 69% of resources spent on national networks is for governance and representation related meetings
• 31% invested in any thematic areas training14% SPO Development8% product specific4% climate change3% Social Compliance (Workers Rights, Child Labour)2% Agricultural practices
69%
14%
8%
4% 3%2%
National Networks
National NW Governance Thematic Area- SPO Development
Thematic Area-Climate Change Tea
Thematic Area-Agricultural Practices Thematic Area-Social Compliance
WHAT MARKETS WANTInformation Needs of “top”NFOs
41
Importance of Primary Product for the Markets Type of Information Required
Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015
42
Product Producer Organization Country
Cotton Pratibha India
Cotton Chetna India
Cotton Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service Cooperative Kyrgyztan
Cereals Sunstar India
Cereals Riceland Foods Thailand
Cereals Green Net Coop Thailand
Cereals OJRPG Thailand
Tea SOFA Sri Lanka
Tea Bogawantalawa Sri Lanka
Tea FTAK India
Coffee PPKGO-Persatuan Petani Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia
Coffee Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia
Coffee Cudliemnong Vietnam
Coffee Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative (HOAC) Papua New Guinea
WHAT FAIRTRADE MARKETS WANTInformation Needs of “top”NFOs
Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015
Take-away:
• Information need around premium usage has received highest rating.
• Other information requirement includes benefits of FT, challenges faced by PO, socio economic profile, insightful stories, history of producers etc.
• How are our plans addressing this need?• Are producer profiles enough?
NAPP KPIsPerformance
43
Objectives Role Definition Indicator
…Outcomes System wide KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
1. Deliver relevant valued services to FT farmers and workers
We deliver relevant, participatory,
empowering and evidence based,
support programs to PO´s. We provide this through both in-house
expertise in programme
development, alliances and partnerships. Our
focus is on cost effective market driven
service delivery.
Stronger and resilience Producer and workers
organizations empowered.
members satisfaction
index
1 members satisfaction index; 75% (rating 3,4,5);63% (rating 4,5)
93% (rating 3,4,5); 36% (rating 4,5)
2
# of PO´s that received training from the PN (disagregated in % of women
and youth participation in training, where possible/in future);
155 247
Participants 4902 Women participants 626 % of women participants 13%
3 average # of contacts per PO (field visits, phone calls, email) 4
Workers and producers know the roles,
responsibilities and rights.
4 # of PO´s per staff member in PN 61 9
Take-away:• Are there some KPIs that need to be modified?• What would you want to measure to deepen impact in Asia Pacific?• How can we streamline KPI data collection?• How does your work contribute to the KPIs?
NAPP KPIsPerformance
44
Objectives Role Definition…Outcomes System wide
KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
2. Building, securing and sustaining access to market for members
PN´s supports their members in securing and sustaining market
access through Technical Assistance
and networking. Fairtrade market
access ensures that PO´s earn Fairtrade Minimum Prices and Premiums that they
democratically invest in their communities.
Stronger, resilient, and more competitive
organizations.Premium
received per producer/worker; <5%/5-50/>
50% of the volume is sold
as FT
5 # GAP trainings; 5 20
Increased incomes (individual or shared) of producers and workers.
6 # of PO´s that received TA in market access, productivity or product quality 105 23
NAPP KPIsPerformance
45
Objectives Role Definition…Outcomes System wide
KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
3. Advocacy. Means: Influencing better
governance policies.
We are diligent in increasing awareness
and visibility of Fairtrade to members
and stakeholders in the respective regions. Our
primary targets for strong visibility are:
The Fair Trade Principles, Values and
Practices and our respective
Organizations (PNs).
Changes (public policies, environmental, economic and social) that benefit producers and workers in the different regions
and countries.
7Nr of local, regional and international events where the PN has participated
in;8
9 international, 8 local,
2 regional
8
# of advocacy initiatives agreed and delivered at local, national and regional
level. 0 3
9 An advocacy policy is in place (Y/N) N
Yes, paper is available. Not yet approved. Work in
progress.
10 Nr of trainings on FT values and
principles and nr of producers/workers reached
7 trainings 126 trainings with 2042 farmers and
workers
NAPP KPIsPerformance
46
Objectives Role Definition…Outcomes System wide
KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
4. Building a strong, settled, Producer
Network as part of a global system.
Our members and partners expect our
continuity and sustainability. We
therefore take initiatives in ensuring
the constant and adequate flow of
financial resources. We ensure full
accountability of all financial resources. We
demonstrate social impact and aim for
programmatic sustainability through in-house expertise,
strategic partnerships and addressing
crosscutting thematic areas.
PNs are Strengthened, sustainable,
accountable, able to deliver services &
programs, and able to influence to the FT
system.
Nr of agreements per year and nr of renewed agreements; % of non-FT funding; zero
based financial
result; Average Cash balance
11Nr of exisiting agreements with patners and or donors in place (how many of
them have been renewed) 1
12 % of non-FT funding (the proportion of funds not generated via license fee) 0
13 Financial result (profit/ loss) by the end of the financial year -85000 Euros
14 Audited accounts in place (y/n) Y
15 Average Cash balance (level of cash reserve in weeks of expenditure) 0
NAPP KPIsPerformance
47
Objectives Role Definition…Outcomes System wide
KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
4. Building a strong, settled, Producer
Network as part of a global system.
Good corporate governance is a priority to us. we believe that in order to achieve the goals and objective, we must have solid
and relevant organizational
structures. Leadership strategies that are
relevant, innovative and offer effective
governance. Policies, systems and
procedures that are driven by members´
needs, are developed to meet the growing requirements of the organization, as well
as ensuring conformity to the national
statutory requirements in the regions and
countries where we are based.
PNs are Strengthened, sustainable,
accountable, able to deliver services &
programs, and able to influence to the FT
system.
Number of FTE 16 Number of FTE (full time equivalents) /
# of consultants 3 8
Staff satisfaction index based on 5 global questions
17 Staff satisfaction index based on 5 global questions,
Individually submitted by staff on survey
monkey
48
2014 20150
50
100
150
200
250
300
155
247
#POs received Training and Support
2014 20150
5
10
15
20
25
5
20
# GAP trainings
2014 20150
5
10
15
20
8
19
#POs facilitated in participating in local, regional and interna-
tional events
2014 20150
20406080
100120 105
23
# POs received Technical Assistance in market ac-
cess, productivity or product quality
2014 20150
20406080
100120140
7
126
# trainings on Fairtrade values and principles
NAPP CLAC0
20
40
60
80
100
120
68
99
Benchmarking Employment Satisfaction Index
NAPP KPIsPerformance (Charts)
MEMBER SATISFACTION INDEXNAPP and other PNs
49
NAPP 2014
NAPP 2015
FTA 2014
FTA 2015
CLAC 2014
CLAC 2015
GLOBAL 2014
GLOBAL 2015
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
75%
93%
80%
85%
82%
88%
80%
87%
63%
36%
71%
55%
72%
61%
70%
54%
Member satisfaction index (Rating 4,5) Member satisfaction index (Rating: 3,4,5)
End of Presentation
Thank youQ&A
The information in this presentation is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where (by reason of that person's nationality, residence or otherwise) the publication or availability of the information is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this document.
The contents of this document have been prepared to provide you with general information only. Information provided on and available from this document does not constitute any investment recommendation. In preparing the information, we have not taken into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making an investment decision, you need to consider whether this information is appropriate to your objectives, financial situation and needs.
The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Examples shown in this document are illustrative and have been included for demonstrational purposes only. We will try to update this document as soon as practicable and as necessary.
Nothing in the document should be construed as an offer or invitation to anyone in any jurisdiction to invest in any product or use any service where such offer or invitation is not lawful, or in which the person making such offer or invitation is not qualified to do so, nor has it been prepared in connection with any such offer or invitation.
The information on this document is published by Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP). For further information about the contents of this site, please contact us. We reserve the right at any time and without notice to change, amend, or cease publication of the information.
Copyright © Network of Asia and Pacific Producers. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, or distributed in any form without prior written permission from NAPP. It is delivered on an "as is" basis without warranty.